what we are witnessing...

First topic message reminder :

I know the claims have been made for a very long time that witness testimony has been changed/suborned. But I honestly don't believe the case for that has ever been all that strong. Suspicion isn't evidence.

I think what we have witnessed 

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=1

here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t34-was-eddie-piper-on-the-6th-floor

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17269

& here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t453-the-rearranged-boxes

to give just some examples, changes all that and is the bones and meat of a prima facie case that Oswald's alibi would not be permitted to stand, and wherever possible, the real story would be turned into a variation on the truth, but leaning towards his guilt.

There is, imo, no longer any justification for defending the WC findings or its methodology.

These threads, among others, contain the real story, or very close to it, about what happened just prior, during and just after the assassination.

The pity is that this story will remain buried in forums. They have no real impact on how the history is written.

It is a large part of my frustration.

Traveller11 wrote:I see your point now, Dan. Yes, there have been some heavy handed moves over at the Ed. Forum, the ousting of Dave Reitz being the most recent.

I still enjoy posting and reading posts there, as I also do at the DPF. I was also a member of the troll-ridden JFK Assassination Forum, until I repeatedly accused certain members there of either being paid disinfo agents or mentally challenged. Nothing hurts like the truth, and I cannot say I miss that forum. Needless to say, everything I ever posted on that forum has disappeared.

The JFK research community is a strange collection of people and, as one researcher said to another, "Everyone in the JFK research community is crazy except for you and me; and lately, I have begun to wonder about you."

Bob, I looked into that last week after I read your Ed Forum post accusing Duncan directly. He did not respond to that. I will........

I found seven pages of google search results. I used this search string. Copy and paste it in
a google.com search box.:

"Best regards" "Robert Prudhomme" jfkassassinationforum.com

Search Results

1. 
   6.5 mm M38 Carcano Barrel and Ammunition (Oswald's Rifle) - JFK ...
   www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5142.155;wap2‎
   6 posts - ‎4 authors
   Which batch were Oswald's 6.5 Carcano cartridges from? Best regards. Robert Prudhomme According to the evidence Oswalds rounds were from the 54 batch ...
   
2. 
   6.5 mm M38 Carcano Barrel and Ammunition (Oswald's Rifle) - JFK ...
   www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5142.150;wap2‎
   6 posts - ‎3 authors
   Once again, which year was Oswald's ammo manufactured in and what proof can you offer? Best regards. Robert Prudhomme Since Frazier testified that these ...
   
3. 
   Neeley Photos - JFK Assassination Forum
   www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=387.30;wap2‎
   6 posts - ‎3 authors
   Best Regards Robert Prudhomme If all of them are photo experts such as on the HSCA, it certainly does. If all of them are photo "experts" like Robert Groden, ...
   
4. 
   6.5 mm M38 Carcano Barrel and Ammunition (Oswald's Rifle) - JFK ...
   www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5142.110;wap2‎
   6 posts - ‎3 authors
   As Mike said, the FBI were attempting to establish that the Walker bullet and CE399 had been fired by Oswald's rifle. Best regards. Robert Prudhomme.
   
5. 
   Blood and Smoke - JFK Assassination Forum
   www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5191.10;wap2‎
   6 posts - ‎2 authors
   It was used in naval guns and artillery during World War Two but has been obselete as a propellant for a long time. Best Regards Robert Prudhomme It was still ...
   
6. 
   Rifle found - JFK Assassination Forum
   www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=470.40;wap2‎
   6 posts - ‎3 authors
   Mike It wouldn't happen to be on the forestock, would it? Best Regards Robert Prudhomme That would be one of them! (237) As a piece of equipment is utilized, ...
   
7. 
   Neeley Photos - JFK Assassination Forum
   www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=387.25;wap2‎
   6 posts - ‎3 authors
   Judging wear marks from a bad photo is a bit of a challenge, though; even for your "experts". Best Regards Robert Prudhomme. Mike Williams: As a guest, you ...
   
8. 
   6.5 mm M38 Carcano Barrel and Ammunition (Oswald's Rifle) - JFK ...
   www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5142.135;wap2‎
   6 posts - ‎4 authors
   How the date of 1954 came about is vague; no letter from WCC or their successor exists to support this date. Best regards. Robert Prudhomme That's stupid.
   
9. 
   Neeley Photos - JFK Assassination Forum
   www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=387.10;wap2‎
   6 posts - ‎5 authors
   Just look at the photo of the FBI man. I would like to see someone reproduce this photo; including the 75 mph wind pose. Best Regards Robert Prudhomme.
   
10. 
    6.5 mm M38 Carcano Barrel and Ammunition (Oswald's Rifle) - JFK ...
    www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5142.70;wap2‎
    6 posts - ‎4 authors
    Best regards. Robert Prudhomme PS You seem like a very intelligent man. I must say that you take away from yourself with comments such as "on your ....
    

Very interesting. I have gone to the forum and looked at threads that I know I have posted in. I can see other members quoting my posts but the post they are quoting is absent from the thread, along with all of my other posts. I wonder why my posts would show up in the archives but not in the threads on the forum? I'm assuming the search turned up archived materiel.

Your posts are still there.... here is a link to one.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5142.msg117501.html#msg117501

RE: the links I displayed in my last post, just delete the .wap ending....

www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5191.10;wap2‎

www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5191

Isn't this your post, intact except for your status as a "guest"?

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5191.msg118437.html#msg118437

Is it possible that the problem just comes down to restrictions on what "guests" can see and access?

greg parker wrote:Is it possible that the problem just comes down to restrictions on what "guests" can see and access?

That is correct, Greg.

Tom Scully wrote:Your posts are still there.... here is a link to one.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5142.msg117501.html#msg117501

RE: the links I displayed in my last post, just delete the .wap ending....

www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5191.10;wap2‎

www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=5191

Isn't this your post, intact except for your status as a "guest"?

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,5191.msg118437.html#msg118437

They are certainly not there when I visit the forum.

How strange. When I click on the link you posted, my posts on that thread are there for me to see. But, when I visit the forum, my posts are not visible.

greg parker wrote:I just remembered that British journalist, Chris Lightbown's book is now out.

Chris Lightbown is an experienced investigative journalist who has worked for the Sunday Times, and his masterly book is the first to use the network of high-quality but unknown independent researchers whose conferences, internet sites, lectures and books have largely been ignored by the mainstream media. Lightbown's book is a brilliant piece of investigative reporting. It is also an utterly convincing and gripping narrative that provides the greatest clarity to the dark event that altered the twentieth century.
http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Death-JFK-Murdered-President/dp/0297864467/ref=pd_sim_b_5

Would be interested to find out what made it in, and what didn't from "internet sites", conferences and etc.

Greg,

I was re-reading this thread and checked on the Chris Lightbrown book but it now lists the publication date as 12/31/2015!

Guess it will be awhile before we can find out who's in and who's out.

Stan Dane wrote:

greg parker wrote:I know the claims have been made for a very long time that witness testimony has been changed/suborned. But I honestly don't believe the case for that has ever been all that strong. Suspicion isn't evidence.

I think what we have witnessed 

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=1

here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t34-was-eddie-piper-on-the-6th-floor

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17269

& here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t453-the-rearranged-boxes

to give just some examples, changes all that and is the bones and meat of a prima facie case that Oswald's alibi would not be permitted to stand, and wherever possible, the real story would be turned into a variation on the truth, but leaning towards his guilt.

There is, imo, no longer any justification for defending the WC findings or its methodology.

These threads, among others, contain the real story, or very close to it, about what happened just prior, during and just after the assassination.

The pity is that this story will remain buried in forums. They have no real impact on how the history is written.

It is a large part of my frustration.

Maybe one way to bury threads that contain the real story is for people to start bunches of new threads?
 
There's a guy over at ED forum that has started 21 new threads in the last two days alone. As a result "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" keeps getting pushed down the list off the front page. My latent paranoia makes me wonder if thread starting might be a way of burying the real stuff in a sea of minutia.

I woke up a few minutes ago and this was on my mind. The real story is in threads like these and like "The Strange Story of Ralph Leon Yates." It is being able to sift through the chaff to find the nuggets of gold. It is being able to recognize that not everything is equally important, then focus on the important. All based on the evidence. Penn Jones advice rings in my ears "The assassination is very broad, lots of names, lots of sub-events. Focus on just one area and find out all you can about it." Prioritize.

Fortunately, we get it.

Now I'll finish waking up and be off for another round of physical therapy.

"Better one safe way than a hundred on which you cannot reckon." Aesop.

Stan Dane wrote:

I woke up a few minutes ago and this was on my mind. The real story is in threads like these and like "The Strange Story of Ralph Leon Yates." It is being able to sift through the chaff to find the nuggets of gold. It is being able to recognize that not everything is equally important, then focus on the important. All based on the evidence. Penn Jones advice rings in my ears "The assassination is very broad, lots of names, lots of sub-events. Focus on just one area and find out all you can about it." Prioritize.

Fortunately, we get it.

Now I'll finish waking up and be off for another round of physical therapy.

"Better one safe way than a hundred on which you cannot reckon." Aesop.

I believe the ancients used to revere the thoughts that came to them in that bleary state between sleep and wakefulness. There is even a specific term for it - that I, of course, cannot recall in my dotage.

Seems like Stan has had one of those moments.

You may think it is inciteful... or merely a good reason to sleep more often.

Heck, maybe both.  

Sometimes, to spell things out is to diminish them.

Y'all have a good weekend!

Into the hypnagogic.

Mark A. O'Blazney wrote:Into the hypnagogic.

Thanks, Mark. That's the word I couldna 'member.

Stan Dane wrote:

Stan Dane wrote:

greg parker wrote:I know the claims have been made for a very long time that witness testimony has been changed/suborned. But I honestly don't believe the case for that has ever been all that strong. Suspicion isn't evidence.

I think what we have witnessed 

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20354&page=1

here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t34-was-eddie-piper-on-the-6th-floor

here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17269

& here
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t453-the-rearranged-boxes

to give just some examples, changes all that and is the bones and meat of a prima facie case that Oswald's alibi would not be permitted to stand, and wherever possible, the real story would be turned into a variation on the truth, but leaning towards his guilt.

There is, imo, no longer any justification for defending the WC findings or its methodology.

These threads, among others, contain the real story, or very close to it, about what happened just prior, during and just after the assassination.

The pity is that this story will remain buried in forums. They have no real impact on how the history is written.

It is a large part of my frustration.

Maybe one way to bury threads that contain the real story is for people to start bunches of new threads?
 
There's a guy over at ED forum that has started 21 new threads in the last two days alone. As a result "Oswald Leaving TSBD?" keeps getting pushed down the list off the front page. My latent paranoia makes me wonder if thread starting might be a way of burying the real stuff in a sea of minutia.

I woke up a few minutes ago and this was on my mind. The real story is in threads like these and like "The Strange Story of Ralph Leon Yates." It is being able to sift through the chaff to find the nuggets of gold. It is being able to recognize that not everything is equally important, then focus on the important. All based on the evidence. Penn Jones advice rings in my ears "The assassination is very broad, lots of names, lots of sub-events. Focus on just one area and find out all you can about it." Prioritize.

Fortunately, we get it.

Now I'll finish waking up and be off for another round of physical therapy.

"Better one safe way than a hundred on which you cannot reckon." Aesop.

In this case you're likely to find nuggets of bullshit while sifting through the chaff and IMHO they are also worth their weight in gold. One less aspect to worry about allows you to move forward and gives you a clearer understanding as well as hones your instinct. I am no researacher by any stretch of the imagination but merely an excited enthusiast. I learn off many and I have learned not to trust it all entirely. A valuable lesson that is still ongoing. I've always relied on my instinct with this case ever since I first became interested in the case when I did a project at school on JFK. I always found it odd that Oswald was killed shortly after. That hasn't changed for me in almost 40 years. In fact it has become clearer in all this sorry mess.
Everything is important in this case. Even the bullshit.

Paul Klein wrote:In this case you're likely to find nuggets of bullshit while sifting through the chaff and IMHO they are also worth their weight in gold. One less aspect to worry about allows you to move forward and gives you a clearer understanding as well as hones your instinct. I am no researacher by any stretch of the imagination but merely an excited enthusiast. I learn off many and I have learned not to trust it all entirely. A valuable lesson that is still ongoing. I've always relied on my instinct with this case ever since I first became interested in the case when I did a project at school on JFK. I always found it odd that Oswald was killed shortly after. That hasn't changed for me in almost 40 years. In fact it has become clearer in all this sorry mess.
Everything is important in this case. Even the bullshit.

Yes, the BS is very instructive in that the BS pockets form patterns which help you see the underlying motive for the BS.

Vacuums and vacancies are likewise instructive. There is always a pattern in what information is erased and that can lead to the motive behind the erasures.

Like you said, "Everything is important in this case." Even the disinformationists.

terlin wrote:

Paul Klein wrote:In this case you're likely to find nuggets of bullshit while sifting through the chaff and IMHO they are also worth their weight in gold. One less aspect to worry about allows you to move forward and gives you a clearer understanding as well as hones your instinct. I am no researacher by any stretch of the imagination but merely an excited enthusiast. I learn off many and I have learned not to trust it all entirely. A valuable lesson that is still ongoing. I've always relied on my instinct with this case ever since I first became interested in the case when I did a project at school on JFK. I always found it odd that Oswald was killed shortly after. That hasn't changed for me in almost 40 years. In fact it has become clearer in all this sorry mess.
Everything is important in this case. Even the bullshit.

Yes, the BS is very instructive in that the BS pockets form patterns which help you see the underlying motive for the BS.

Vacuums and vacancies are likewise instructive. There is always a pattern in what information is erased and that can lead to the motive behind the erasures.

Like you said, "Everything is important in this case." Even the disinformationists.

My first great leap in all this was discovering disinformation. The shot pattern was a big eye opener for me. The attempts by some who should know better to push the mythical first shot missing at Z154-Z160 got me going.
I still don't know the full extent of it all and to be honest it scares me even 50 years later.

Are we wasting our time?

Stan, to use a boxing analogy, if you're still on your feet, you've still got a puncher's chance. 

Are we not still on our feet? Yes. Can we muster enough of a "punch" to get the attention of the judges? That remains to be seen, but we have to try.

I suppose some play with bricks, form secret panels and place their hope in others, while some get in the ring and start swinging.

greg parker wrote:Stan, to use a boxing analogy, if you're still on your feet, you've still got a puncher's chance. 

Are we not still on our feet? Yes. Can we muster enough of a "punch" to get the attention of the judges? That remains to be seen, but we have to try.

I don't think this is a fight anyone wants to take on, Greg, if I can extend your boxing analogy. The WC findings have largely remained undefeated and undisputed because of this 50 year reluctance to engage in a rematch.
The fight was rigged and Oswald took the dive. That is all we need to prove. We don't need a Kennedy for that.

Stan,

I'd still like to know what "facts" are intended to win Caroline over.

I don't think "the big, bad men in Black hats killed your brother for deep political reasons" is going to cut it somehow.

Paul Klein2 wrote:

greg parker wrote:Stan, to use a boxing analogy, if you're still on your feet, you've still got a puncher's chance. 

Are we not still on our feet? Yes. Can we muster enough of a "punch" to get the attention of the judges? That remains to be seen, but we have to try.

I don't think this is a fight anyone wants to take on, Greg, if I can extend your boxing analogy. The WC findings have largely remained undefeated and undisputed because of this 50 year reluctance to engage in a rematch.
The fight was rigged and Oswald took the dive. That is all we need to prove. We don't need a Kennedy for that.

Well, let's keep running with the boxing analogies... what we see fairly often in boxing is a champion being shadowed by a contender who takes every opportunity to crash media events with the champ to issue a challenge which thus far the champ has avoided. Not always, but sometimes at least, the champ is eventually pushed into accepting or face looking like he's scared. 

In our situation, we can't crash too many media events - though there is an opportunity next month with the anniversary of a certain report. Beyond that, we have to keep pushing ahead with new evidence and strategically putting it out there. 

Others may balk at that - or even ridicule it. But those are the people who don't think there is anything new to put out anyway - simply because they themselves can't find anything. Screw 'em.  We have some of the best minds in the business posting here - among them some authors who have books out or due out soon - which, from what I've seen, will add to the power of our punch.

greg parker wrote:Stan,

I'd still like to know what "facts" are intended to win Caroline over.

I don't think "the big, bad men in Black hats killed your brother for deep political reasons" is going to cut it somehow.

I'm with ya, bro. I just wanted to see what some of the Dirty Dozen thought. When I hear that nothing short of a Kennedy will get the job done, I like to hear what others think. Because if that's what it takes we're fucked. 

I think new, unambiguous facts and arguments is our best "puncher's chance" to tip the scales. So keep the research going, baby.

As far as success goes, I'm pessimistic in the short term, optimistic over the long haul. Keep swinging, baby.

greg parker wrote:

Paul Klein2 wrote:

greg parker wrote:Stan, to use a boxing analogy, if you're still on your feet, you've still got a puncher's chance. 

Are we not still on our feet? Yes. Can we muster enough of a "punch" to get the attention of the judges? That remains to be seen, but we have to try.

I don't think this is a fight anyone wants to take on, Greg, if I can extend your boxing analogy. The WC findings have largely remained undefeated and undisputed because of this 50 year reluctance to engage in a rematch.
The fight was rigged and Oswald took the dive. That is all we need to prove. We don't need a Kennedy for that.

Well, let's keep running with the boxing analogies... what we see fairly often in boxing is a champion being shadowed by a contender who takes every opportunity to crash media events with the champ to issue a challenge which thus far the champ has avoided. Not always, but sometimes at least, the champ is eventually pushed into accepting or face looking like he's scared. 

In our situation, we can't crash too many media events - though there is an opportunity next month with the anniversary of a certain report. Beyond that, we have to keep pushing ahead with new evidence and strategically putting it out there. 

Others may balk at that - or even ridicule it. But those are the people who don't think there is anything new to put out anyway - simply because they themselves can't find anything. Screw 'em.  We have some of the best minds in the business posting here - among them some authors who have books out or due out soon - which, from what I've seen, will add to the power of our punch.

All I am saying, Greg, is that you can strip the champ of his WC belt without laying a punch. We can prove the fight was a set up. We have some of the best minds in the business here like you said.
This chump ain't gonna take the fight. He is a fraud.

I take your point, Paul - and it's not without some truth. 

Let's put it another way... it is the very definition of madness to keep throwing the same evidence and theories at "the champ" and expect a different result at some stage. He's immune to it - inoculated by a compliant press over 50 years. 

But it's a different world now with the internet. And we have lots of "new" facts at our disposal.